Thursday, January 11, 2018

When 97% becomes 99.6% - climate change in 2017

Anthony Watts has kindly pointed out that the scientific consensus on climate change is changing. He wrote the very strange headline: "‘The 97% climate consensus’starts to crumble with 485 new papers in 2017 that question it". Apparently some drongo (who does this every year IIRC) has only managed to dig up 485 "papers" that he claims " in some way questioned the supposed consensus regarding the perils of human CO2 emissions or the efficacy of climate models to predict the future."

I expect that, as in past collections, many of findings of those 485 don't dispute climate change, and many probably support the fact that human activity is causing global warming, but I haven't bothered checking (because that's not the point of this little article). What struck me was that 485 was a pretty small number given the vast number of peer-reviewed publications on climate change these days.

If you go to Google Scholar and search for the term "climate change" and select "2017-2017", you'll find there were "About 115,000 results". Now 485 is 0.4% of 115,000, so even if all those 485 papers disputed the greenhouse effect (which they don't), it would still mean that one could argue that 97% has become 99.6% :D

Now that even beats the 98.4% of WUWT-ers who deny straightforward science. Who'd have thought!

12 comments:

Popular Priest Fathered Child and Says He'll Step Aside - The New ...www.nytimes.com/2012/.../popular-priest-fathered-child-and-says-hell-step-aside.htm...

May 15, 2012 - Thomas D. Williams, apologized in a statement on Tuesday “for this grave transgression” and “to everyone who is hurt by this revelation.” He said he would take a year off from public ministry to reflect on his transgressions and his “commitments as a priest” — a decision he said he made with his superiors.

The usual self-harm from WUWT's dimwits.A quick look at the abstracts for the first dozen in the first list offers no support to their claim of 485 that "..questioned the supposed consensus regarding the perils of human CO2 emissions or the efficacy of climate models to predict the future". The legit papers are on past climate discussing known/suspected climate influences of the times, which naturally exclude elevated CO2 because, amazingly, CO2 wasn't elevated in the early Holocene by human use of FFs. And there's a junk sea level paper [Morner]'Brain-dead' sounds an optimistic assessment of these folks.

Conspiracy blogs and white supremacist rags are about all that's condoned at WUWT. Facts are not tolerated. Science journals, science websites and legitimate media sources are pretty well off limits. WUWT is for weird and wacky denier dimwits, remember. (How's that :D)

Kenneth Richard is the pseudonym of a man named Rick Cina who is a children's entertainer and foster home parent from Morrisonville, Illinois. His youtube channel is here.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnHRZVruXtmAQ9MuQ6UHYOQ

He got his start spamming unmoderated science forums with the same copy/paste nonsense. Anyway, here's him admitting to using a pseudonym. He also didn't get any death threats, the man is a nutter. I actually wouldn't be surprised if he was getting paid to write this drivel.

Heh. That RCina idiot almost single-handedly destroyed the comments section of Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy blog before it was moved to Slate (and now SYFY). Two out of every 3 comments on any AGW post were guaranteed to be RCina copy-pasta drivel.

I stopped reading Bad Astronomy after several months of that un-moderated nonsense. If you tried to reply he dutifully ignored what you were saying and threw some new copy-pasta at you. Got to hand it to him, though. He sure was dedicated and nearly always on the job :-\

New Look

G'day. HotWhopper is having a facelift. Do let me know if you find anything missing or broken.

When you read older articles on a desktop or notebook, you may find the sidebar moves down the page, instead of being on the side. That can happen with some older articles if your browser is not the full width of your computer screen. I am not planning to check every previous post, so if you come across something particularly annoying, send me an email and I'll fix it. Or you can add your thoughts to this feedback article.

You can use the menu up top to get to the blogroll or whatever it is you might be looking for on the sidebar.

When moderation shows as ON, there may be a short or occasionally longer delay before comments appear. When moderation is OFF, comments will appear as soon as they are posted.

All you need to know about WUWT

WUWT insider Willis Eschenbach tells you all you need to know about Anthony Watts and his blog, WattsUpWithThat (WUWT). As part of his scathing commentary, Wondering Willis accuses Anthony Watts of being clueless about the blog articles he posts. To paraphrase:

Even if Anthony had a year to analyze and dissect each piece...(he couldn't tell if it would)... stand the harsh light of public exposure.

Definition of Denier (Oxford): A person who denies something, especially someone who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence.
‘a prominent denier of global warming’
‘a climate change denier’

Alternative definition: A former French coin, equal to one twelfth of a Sou, which was withdrawn in the 19th century. Oxford. (The denier has since resurfaced with reduced value.)